It is difficult to regard neoconservatism with anything other than distaste. Leading neocons, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, and assorted members of the Kagan family, not only played a major role in the onset of the Iraq War, of blessed memory. No, this did not suffice for them. They propagandized for more wars: the blessings of democracy must be brought to all the nations of the Middle East. What David Frum, another of their number, called the Axis of Evil must be destroyed.

Justin Vaïsse, a French expert on American politics who is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, writes as a historian of a movement rather than as an advocate of doctrine of his own, but he rejects the current neocon line on foreign policy, as any decent person would. “One final problem inherent in the neoconservative vision and the Bush doctrine [was] … democratic dogmatism, yet another consequence of intellectual laziness … Not only was democracy not a magic wand, but implanting it was not as simple as some neoconservatives … sometimes described it.”

Vaïsse argues that this reckless disregard for reality has not always characterized neoconservatism. To the contrary, the movement began in the 1960s with cogent criticisms of some of the domestic programs of the Johnson administration. The grandiose goals of the proponents of the Great Society could not be achieved, according to Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Moynihan, and other early neocons. (It is daunting to realize that Bell and Glazer have been writing since the 1940s.). In The Public Interest, a journal founded by Bell and Irving Kristol, the critics of the conventional wisdom on the welfare state claimed that “the law of unintended consequences” imposes severe limits on the efficacy of political action. “For instance, rent control, though well-intentioned, leads to housing shortages (because landlords have no incentive to invest) . . . the overall focus of The Public Interest became ‘the limits of social policy’.”

If neoconservatism began in this way, do we not confront a difficulty? How has a movement of skeptical realism become transformed into one of dangerous delusions? Indeed, is there in fact a continuous neoconservative movement that stretches from the 1960s to the present? Should we not say rather, as some of the early neocons contended, that the earlier movement came to an end in the 1990s?

Vaïsse demonstrates that real continuities exist between the early neocons and their current successors. True enough, the early neocons stressed domestic policy; but they did not ignore foreign policy altogether. They called for an active policy in pursuit of the Cold War. In doing so, they continued the “vital center” liberalism championed by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. after World War II that combined an interventionist foreign policy with social-reform measures in the style of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Like Schlesinger and his ilk, the early neocons celebrated the martial virtues brought out in the crusade against the Kremlin.

A like emphasis pervaded their criticism of the Great Society. The neocons of what Vaïsse terms the first age of the movement by no means wished to end the welfare state. They were not disciples of Mises and Hayek but rather sought to reform welfare so that it would not corrupt character. National virtue was to them all-important. Precisely what turned them against the New Left and the McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party was the hedonism and lack of patriotism that they believed were present there. They were not men of the Right but New Dealers who wished to restore the glory days of old. If only the spirit of sacrifice that prevailed during World War II could be recovered, all would be well.

A great strength of Vaïsse’s book is his stress on the second age of neoconservatism, which spans the gap between the Public Interest writers and the “national greatness” drumbeaters of today. This intermediate stage consisted of Henry “Scoop” Jackson Democrats. Not content with the influence that their writing had achieved, the 1960s neocons saw in the popular senator from Washington a way to advance their goals. Like them, Jackson was a New Dealer and Cold Warrior of the utmost tenacity. His leitmotif, though, was another topic essential to the neocons. Jackson strongly supported Israeli foreign policy and pressured Soviet Russia to allow Jewish emigration. Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns.

No one who absorbs Vaïsse’s discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether the neocons count as genuine conservatives. Jackson made no secret of his statist views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting in his behalf. Vaïsse by the way understates Jackson’s commitment to socialism, which dated from his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson joined while in college, was not “a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles.” It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.

It was not Jackson’s domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaïsse stresses in particular that they collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, “Team B,” under the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated. It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.

The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. “In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president’s desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a ‘man of peace,’ ready to negotiate with the Soviets.”

The “national greatness” neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon.

Vaïsse’s book consists largely of a narrative history of neoconservatism rather than an interpretation of the movement. Within the bounds he has set himself, Vaïsse has given us a very useful survey, though the book contains a few mistakes, e.g., Virginia Woolf was not one of Stephen Spender’s “most notable authors” at Encounter magazine. She died in 1941, long before the journal was founded. Vaïsse does not eschew analysis altogether; after considering several alternatives, he suggests that neoconservatism is best viewed as “fundamentally a manifestation of patriotism or even nationalism.” If so, one wonders why he classifies Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as nationalists but not neocons.

C. Bradley Thompson views neoconservatism in an entirely different light. He believes that to understand an intellectual movement, one must unearth its philosophical foundations. He locates these foundations in the thought of Leo Strauss, and much of his book consists of an analysis of the works of this enigmatic thinker. Thompson was himself a student of Harvey Mansfield and Ralph Lerner, both leading Straussians; but while he still respects them as scholars, he now thinks Straussian views inimical to liberty.

To make his case, Thompson must overcome some formidable obstacles. As Vaïsse remarks, “For a small number of neoconservatives, Strauss was a meaningful influence, but not more important than others … Even more compelling is the fact that Strauss .. almost never made statement about the [political] issues of the day.” Thompson, well aware of these objections, counters in this way. Irving Kristol is the quintessential neocon, the “godfather” of the movement; and Straussian influence on Kristol is unmistakable. “Kristol’s confrontation with Strauss came as an epiphany. It was, as Kristol has intimated on several occasions, the most important intellectual event of his life.”

Before we can assess Thompson’s thesis, we must grasp how he characterizes neoconservatism. A theory must be clearly in view before its foundations can be discussed. As Thompson sees matters, neoconservatism rejects individual rights. Rights for neocons do not trump considerations of state; to the contrary, the public good, as neocons conceive of it, justifies the state in setting aside the liberty of persons to live their life as they choose. The state must actively mold people in order to make them virtuous; and among these virtues, sacrifice for the common good is paramount. “At a deeper level, Kristol and [David] Brooks actually reject the fundamental principles of a free and liberal society. According to Kristol, principles such as individual rights, limited government, and economic freedom are neither morally edifying nor practically sustainable.”

What does all this have to do with Strauss? Thompson maintains that Strauss did not believe in natural rights either. His praise for the principles of the American founding in Natural Right and History was part of his exoteric teaching, intended to lull the suspicions of readers unfit to grasp the true teaching of philosophy. Strauss’s true esoteric teaching, which only a careful reader can discern, is that philosophers exist on a higher plan than the rest of humanity. They can absorb the truths that God does not exist and that ordinary morality rests on no foundations. “From a strictly philosophical perspective, Strauss, Kristol, and the neocons have, on principle, dispensed with principle. They do not think that an immutably true moral code can or should be generated from man’s mutable social reality.”

The masses, to the contrary, require the consolations of religion and morality. The philosophical elite must guide them according to the wisdom it alone can discern. The reader will not fail to note echoes of Plato here; and Thompson holds that Strauss was indeed an ardent Platonist, however idiosyncratic his interpretation of The Republic might be. Thompson’s finds affinities between Strauss’s elitism and fascism and maintains that during the 1930s, Strauss viewed Italian fascism with favor. “We also now have concrete evidence that Strauss read and was influenced at some level by Mussolini.”

Even if this understanding of Strauss is correct, what does it have to do with the excesses of neocon aggression abroad? Thompson and Yaron Brook, the author of their book’s chapter on foreign policy, contend that the neocon crusade to spread democracy abroad offers a perfect instrument for a Straussian elite to guide the masses to virtue. It does this stressing self-sacrifice to attain national greatness. “Individuals’ lives are only truly meaningful, say the neconservatives, if they sacrifice for some collective, ‘higher’ purpose that ‘transcends’ their unimportant, petty, finite, ephemeral selves.”

Thompson successfully shows that though the neocons often invoke the American tradition, they do not genuinely believe in the “unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” His thesis about Strauss’s influence on the neocons is open to much more dispute, but even those who reject it will find the analysis of Strauss valuable in its own right. Vaïsse and Thompson have both provided, in different ways, tools that will help us understand a pernicious political movement.

David Gordon is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 31 comments

31 Responses to Neoconservatism Defined

As articulated above, and as summarized in the last paragraph, the Neo Cons thus are anti-American seditionists: “they do not believe in the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness.” Moreover, their divorcing from Reagan over his peace-thru-strength Soviet & other policies, should have been the eye-opener omen for all historians.

So, if not for the American constitution, who then do these oil-and-armaments cons serve? Kinda gives some validation to the theological dictums of “serving the devil,” no? Conservative Fox & WSJ are the sheep’s attire these cons don; for them its a perpetual season of the witch…

David Gordon as usual hits the nail on the head here. The Thompson book is greatly marred by Yaron Brook’s crazed foreign policy chapter (8.) Brook advocates total civilian saturation bombing a la WW2 in Germany and Japan and thus thinks the neocons are too sqeamish in their views on
“collateral damage.” Brook is a former Israeli Army interrogator and head of the Ayn Rand Institute, a fountainhead (pun intended) of utter nonsense on the Middle
East and unconditional warfare. It was set up by Rand’s numbskull heir, Leonard Peikoff, who was so overwrought on
the “Islamic terror” question that Bill O’Reilly took umbrage at his extremism ! A friend of mine down in the Bay Area, Mike
Hardesty, made these points in a critical review of the Thompson work on Amazon and Amazon censored it after first publishing it ! Hardesty then ended his ten year relationship as an Amazon customer.
The point here is that you make all the philosophical points that you want against neocon statism-collectivism but if you endorse the mass murder of total warfare then it’s all for nil.

Are you referring to Gordon’s review or my comments ?
I thought my last sentence made the point that endorsing
the collectivism of mass murder abroad cancels out one’s
domestic libertarianism. How can I be clearer ?

It amazes me that anyone would even on the surface not realize by now that both parties are Un-American. The Democrats are Marxists and the Republicans are Fascists; just different iterations and servants of our “Progressive Philosopher Kings” who have the intellectuall might and immoral authority to enslave, exploit and when needed send us overseas as cannon fodder for thier enlightened schemes but in reality to enrich and augment thier power always at the expense of the rest of us.

Only the Libertarians are true to the Constitution, there is no future for freedon in America without overthrowing the ruling class.

I like to think of Strauss as a Jewish paleoconservative, a semi-Zionist who understood the ambiguity of refounding the Israeli state (which he compared to the completion of the Talmud in importance) upon Spinozist principles i.e., upon a denial of the reality of the Jewish God and the rational necessity of the Jewish law. He was a Jew the way Socrates was an Athenian–at least, that’s how I think he would have conceived it. Socrates, himself not much of a political actor nor measurably concerned with practical Athenian policy of his day, was still implicated in the actions of some of his students like Alcibiades and Critias, both of whom (I believe) were accused and perhaps guilty of treason for their “adventures” in foreign policy. To what extent is the teacher responsible for the student? This is an acute question for philosophers who understand that most people cannot be philosophers, even and especially their students. That Strauss should be held accountable for Irving Kristol or Abram Shulsky or Paul Wolfowitz requires more direct proof that these men would not have argued or acted as they have done without Strauss’ influence; furthermore, one must show that Strauss’ influence was not neutral or moderating.

A few years ago Tom West wrote an article in the Claremont Review of Books (not my favorite publication) making a formidable case that Strauss would have opposed our entry into Iraq, or at least our interminable presence there. In his practical politics, Strauss appears as more of a realist than anything else.

BTW, not all Straussians are unbelievers–Ernest Fortin was not, and though I respect Strauss highly I am not. However, most Straussians tend to play their cards relatively close to the chest. Christopher Bruell, one of the most eminent “Straussians” in the school, asserted that atheism was incompatible with philosophy since it was a dogmatic assumption–as Strauss stated, in the face of an incomplete cosmological-biological account of the world, it is impossible to rule out the existence and/or necessity of a Creator to explain the world. Some Straussians have indeed asserted that this was so much dissimulation on Strauss’s part, but they have had difficulty explaining exactly why without resorting to circular reasoning and some mythmaking of their own. It wouldn’t be the first time a student tried to impute his own prejudices as the wisdom of his more respected teacher. If Strauss did indeed possess a non-dogmatic basis for a hidden atheism, he did not demonstrate it and offered many powerful reasons to reject such a stance.

Esotericism is not code for atheism, but rather a rhetorical stance employed by anyone who wishes to protect their freedom of thought from the social demand to conform their opinion. We address this problem primarily through our espousal of freedom of speech, which is intended to make esotericism pointless. However, esotericism can also be meant to show the insufficiency of propositional speech to express truth about an inherently mysterious world. Indeed, were the world as easy to figure out as atheists believe, there would be no philosophy. Nevertheless, all philosophers tend to question received or traditional wisdom (they have to), which necessarily gives them the appearance of atheism or corruption (whether they are in fact atheists or not); furthermore, they cannot admit to truths on the basis of faith without obviating their quest for wisdom knowable to humans simply because they are humans.

Strauss himself stated that one should only accept an esoteric reading of a text if it is more “precise” than a non-esoteric reading; he said he would be satisfied if people would simply suspect that esotericism might be employed by some authors. He did NOT say that one should assume esotericism on the front end, and he was well aware that one could read what one wanted into a text rather than what was actually there.

What the neoconservatives took away from Strauss reflects more on their abilities than Strauss’s instruction. Many so-called Straussians were not even his students, and tended to receive a kind of doctrinalized version of Strauss at second or third hand. One of Strauss’s students, Stanley Rosen, has openly stated that most Straussians are actually quite second-rate and were not particularly attentive to their teacher, except in matters of what they already wanted to believe.

For Strauss, liberal democracy’s reliability as a suitable home for Jews is suspect in the light of Weimar and the Holocaust. For Jews to place America over Israel requires a degree of assimilation that is inconsistent, perhaps, with Jews’ self-respect and continued identity as a separate people. Israel represents a test of whether the Jews can again be a sovereign people on the earth, with their own land and borders. It is not clear that they will succeed, but if they fail, then assimilation is their only alternative–that, or permanent diaspora as in the Middle Ages.

I don’t think their situation is all that hard to understand, which is not the same thing as justifying every act of oppression they commit in the name of their own self-determination. It’s also been a question, particularly for traditional conservatives here in America: Who are we? Is it simply true that anyone who comes here and passes a citizenship exam is as American as someone whose ancestors have been here for two or more centuries? Is America a Christian political order, and if so, in what sense? If not, what public morality can bind so many peoples of different faiths and ethnicities? Can we maintain a permanent identity in the face of relentless pressure to assimilate? Is America a “propositional nation”, or is it defined by its (primarily English and Christian) legal traditions and customs? Are only minorities permitted to have an ethnic identity, or can the majority assert its ethnicity politically?

As you can see, many of these questions are being asked by Israelis as well as readers of this magazine. Obviously, these questions can be answered in a way that lends itself to oppression or violence towards the weak; but these questions are also asked and answered by the weak who wish to throw off oppression themselves. The problem of an out-of-control militaristic political elite out of touch with its people is not simply an American issue; it is a Palestinian issue as well as an Israeli one. One could sum it up, perhaps, thus: what is the basis of sovereignty, and in whom does it reside?

Also have to agree with Adam Rurik: Israel is the key. It is the one non-negotiable “principle” of neoconservatism. It deeply compromises the neocons both as Americans and (if Jewish) as Jews.

At this point Israel has cost us too much money and blood to permit the various US Jewish interest groups to continue to dominate our policy toward Israel: time’s up. They have shown themselves incompetent and/or untrustworthy from an American perspective, and it’s our turn.

What about Trotsky? These books seem to ignore the neocons roots in Trotskyism. Irving Kristol was a Trotsky devotee, and all the prominent neocons adore Trotsky. So, in a sense, they are both communists and fascists in conservative drag.

CDK said, “Israel represents a test of whether the Jews can again be a sovereign people on earth, with their own land and borders.” Perhaps herein lies the problem within a vastly accepted Biblical falsehood which reminds me of what Oswald Spengler wrote in anticipation of the minimalist position, “The idea of a Chosen People emerges…For the Chaldeans and Persians there was no need to trouble here about proof – they had by their God conquered the world. But the Jews had only their literature to cling to, and this accordingly turned to theoretical proof in the absence of positive. In the last analysis, this unique national treasure owes its origin to the constant need of reacting against self-depreciation.”

Several years ago, I took it upon myself to read analytically the Bollingen edition (all of the Dialogues and all of the Epistles between one set of covers) of Plato. I re-read this four times before stopping in sheer disgust. The experience left me with a gut-personal man-to-man hatred for Aristocles Platon, because it convinced me that Popper was right about him. Popper accused Plato of having — in the Republic, the Laws, and the Statesman — drawn the blueprint, used with idiosyncratic variations both by Lenin and by Hitler, of the totalitarian state. Further, he is a shining example of what Podhoretz, in criticising Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, called the “… perversity of brilliance…” If Plato was a superb stylist, I compare this to a literal poison pill coated with fine German milk chocolate.

More Fascist Socialists. Their corporatist economy enables militant expeditions and really is one and the same. The defense and corporate welfare budget far exceeds the social welfare budget. Throw in the financial welfare {which enables corporatism} and we are embedded in a neo con state, no matter the outcome elections.

Reading the comments above, the thought does come to mind that what Straussians refer to as the “exoteric” and “esoteric” meaning of texts is more or less the same as the Catholic Church’s definition of the literal and metaphorical sense of scripture. Hence, one can only condemn the Straussian school when it becomes gnostically heretical in nature (e.g makes claims to special revelation and mystical insight). The rest does not rise above the level of opinion.

Chapter 8 of Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea is titled “Benevolent Hegemony” which is the the essence of neoconservatism foreign policy. Is this a valid concept?

As is pointed out on p. 172,

“More notably, we also present a radically new interpretation of neoconservative foreign policy in the pages that follow. Our guiding premise is that we view neoconservative foreign policy as one component of their overall attempt to develop a ‘governing philosophy’ for the GOP, and, more particularly, we view their foreign policy as a branch of their domestic policy.”

This raises the question, “Do individuals need to be governed or should they be left alone to live their lives as they see fit?”

“From a strictly philosophical perspective, Strauss, Kristol, and the neocons have, on principle, dispensed with principle. They do not think that an immutably true moral code can or should be generated from man’s mutable social reality.”

Gordon then says that Strauss is a Platonist (and he is right in the sense that Strauss desired rule by a philosophic elite, esoteric/exoteric teachings, different doctrines for different “types”, etc.).

But the big difference is that for Plato there *was an immutable moral code*– it was grounded in the subsistent immutable form of the Good. This form though lacked personality (intelligence and will). It took Christian wisdom to identify the form of the Good with a personal God.

I saw a thing on C Span a while ago about a whole different level of neoconservatism which was at the Pentagon. Basically, they’re philosophy was never showing weakness. It’s like a religion to them. I can’t remember either the author or the person he credited with pushing this concept to the forefront of thought at the Pentagons name. helpful eh?

I think it was THAT strain of neoconservatism that guided the likes of cheney and rumsfeld the most.

Neo-con “crusade for democracy”, via old hats like Leo Strauss? Do not make me laugh. The only states that get “crusaded” are Arab/Muslim actual/potential enemies of ISRAEL: Iraq, Afghanistan, and next Iran. This via much more recent infestation of (former) conservative movement by ZIONISTS.

Plato never advocated a totalitarian state
Instead he advocated a state which would be lead by its elite
He proposed a rigorous process of schooling and selection which would allow choosing the best regardless of their class or social status
This elite he called “philosopher kings”
Closest that humanity ever came to this system was during second Roman golden age with 5 “good” emperors
Plato did despise democracy as did almost every great thinker of Western civilization up to second half of 20th century
It was then when democracy acquired status of religion and any descent has been equalled with heresy
Neo con concept of spreading this failed and corrupt system should be seen as just another weapon to rule and keep masses subdued
As for modern neo-cons (mostly Jewish) their main goal was to take hold of Republican Party after decades of dominating democrats and liberals
Pushing America from one war to another diverting attention and hatred of Muslim world from Israel and most importantly using this permanent state of war as ultimate proof of American need for its
“most important allay” Israel has been their strategy covered with spreading democracy nonsense and BS

the former trotskyists loyal to “scoop” jackson in the late 1960s changed loyalties soon after the israelis occupied the west bank and gaza in the 1967 war, leading the american and european left to turn against israel. the left had been mesmerized by the kibbutz and labor philosphy of early israel, but realized its true nature in 1967 — a nakedly expansionist middle eastern nation intent on recreating eretz israel, which existed only in zionist mythology and spoke of a non-existent pre-biblical jewish kingdom that encompassed israel, parts of egypt, lebanon, syria and jordan. america will defeat this neocon vision, or be defeated by it

If there is a key distinction between neocons and the traditional (respectable) right, it is that former view America as an “ideological nation” — as Podheretz or I Kristol themselves put it — and the latter do not. In fact, the latter — as constituted by such thinkers like Kirk, ME Bradford, and Oakeshott — categorically reject the rationalist or “teological” politics which neocons embody to an extent indistinguishable from the historical Left. As such, necons look to the State to provide direction and stability to a “mutable” society, while the traditional Right saw in any society a fairly solid continuity of collective identity and style that government only existed to sustain and protect.

Neo-Conservatives are sponsored entirely by Feudal Capitalists…Too Big to Fail, and Too Big to Follow Rules.

They have no concept of Adam Smith and his ‘enlightened self-interest’. For them, using ever-increasing wealth to warp democracy so that they can poison the town well, force their neighbours kids to work in their mills and hook everyone on ‘legal’ drugs is all par for the course. I don’t know which is worse: the extreme left’s social ‘nanny state’ or the extreme right’s moral ‘nanny state’. Both specialize in telling the rest of society how to live their lives.

For those individuals wondering how and why the neoconservatives have gained influence and power in the Pentagon and other departments of our government. Chapter 8: Benevolent Hegemony in Thompson’s book is of particular interest and value.

As is pointed out in the section “September 11 and the Rise of Neoconservative Foreign Policy”,

“The neoconservatives rightly pointed out that “realism” was a shortsighted prescription for long-range disaster-a policy of inaction and appeasement in the face of very real threats, and thus a guarantor that those threats would grow bolder and stronger over time.” (p. 173)

Their war-making urgency, I think, comes from their fear of demographic forces at work in the Middle East. Left to time and population changes, Israel must eventually lose its predominantly Jewish character unless the American military radically changes the region and soon. These sanctimonious levellers in America must sweat bullets when they imagine the same principles at work in their “Jewish” state.

Thomas Ponder wrote:
‘Israel must eventually lose its predominantly Jewish character unless the American military radically changes the region and soon.’

I’ve long believed that the neocons pushed for the Iraq war for the very reason of permanently entrapping America’s military on Israel’s back porch. Sadly, we’re in the Middle East permanently to protect Israel from an impending demographic tidal wave. Thank you Mr. Ponder. Your comment affirms my belief. 8-(

Neoconservatives are, besides being statist and elitist, very much about *nationalism*.

They look first and foremost not at the well-being of individuals, but at the well-being of arbitrarily defined collectives, i.e. nation-states (specifically “America” and “Israel” and to a lesser extent those governments or societies perceived as allied to these two).

Like state socialism, fascism, and other authoritarian philosophies of governance, nationalism is a form of statism (putting the interests of governments, which are presumed to legitimately represent and speak for the masses, over those of individuals).

National governments derive their perceived legitimacy from the nationalism of the governed.

They enjoy a popular perception, reinforced by popular linguistic phrasings, as being almost synonymous with the abstractions that go by names such as Israel, Japan, Russia, Iran, and the United States of America.

For instance it is regularly debated whether “Iran” should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, when really the question is whether the regime that currently controls that part of the earth’s surface known as Iran should be allowed to do so.

People, including journalists, implicitly identify governments almost as extensions of themselves, using phrasing such as “our president”, or “we are in Afghanistan” when really what they mean is the president of the U.S. government, or that employees of the U.S. government are in Afghanistan.

Nationalism is a pernicious form of statism, because unlike the aforementioned forms, it can superficially appear to be compatible with individual liberty. Especially when, as in the case of the United States, the national narrative is strongly libertarian.

This allows the U.S. government to promote itself as arising out of that narrative and being the chief defender of liberty, when in fact its present nature flies in the face of that narrative it is the main *threat* to liberty.

I contend that the biggest threat to the life, liberty, and property of people living on that part of the earth’s surface known as Italy, is the entity known as the “Italian government”. The biggest threat to people living in the area called Brazil is the Brazilian government. The biggest threat to people in China is the Chinese regime. And of course, the biggest threat to people living in the United States is the U.S. government. Et cetera, with perhaps a very few exceptions in certain times and places.

Nationalism is the primary means by which governments disguise this reality. By identifying themselves with the people under their sway, they are able to direct the fears and anxieties of those people toward other ruling entities outside their spheres of influence, and even to the people under the sway of those entities.

Remember the image presented as the future of humanity in George Orwell’s 1984? A boot pressed down upon a human face, forever.

Now imagine that boot has the flag of “your” country emblazoned on it, and it is your face being ground under its heel.

Looking around, you can see other faces being ground under other heels, with other flags on them. Some of those faces, seem to be looking at you threateningly, as do those wearing the boots.

The owner of the boot on your face warns you that he’s going to have to press down a little harder, in order to protect you from them.

And you kiss the flag on the boot, and admire the inseam, and how well the sole conforms to the shape of your face, and pity those other faces being crushed by steel-toed boots, or muddy boots, or boots with cleats on their bottoms, feeling thankful that the boot grinding into you is so well-designed, and that you live in a free country.